Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp77wb-mcp

cp77wb-mcp

by 0xra0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wb_live_camera

Read the live first-person camera transform through an optional CET bridge so AI agents can inspect the player's current viewpoint during Cyberpunk 2077 World Builder work.

Instructions

Read the live FPP camera transform through the optional CET bridge.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rpc_dir": "<rpc_dir>"
    },
    "name": "wb_live_camera"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rpc_dirYes
timeoutNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies read-only and 'optional CET bridge' flags a dependency, but it does not explain what happens when the bridge is absent, required runtime/permissions, latency, or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; 'optional CET bridge' is a useful qualifier. It is appropriately sized for the stated purpose, though the acronyms FPP and CET are left unexplained.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool, the definition is still thin: no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema descriptions, and no explanation of rpc_dir, timeout, or bridge fallback. It leaves the agent guessing about invocation details and failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the required rpc_dir parameter or the timeout parameter. The phrase 'CET bridge' only loosely hints at rpc_dir and does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb, 'Read', and a specific resource, 'live FPP camera transform', plus the mechanism, 'optional CET bridge'. It is distinguishable from generic live tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as wb_live_player or wb_live_state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: call it when the live FPP camera transform is needed. The description does not say when to prefer or avoid it relative to sibling tools, when not to use it, or what the optional CET bridge prerequisite means for availability.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools